# 40 Gladstone Street, Scarborough (house to 7-bed HMO)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Caines
- **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6012886
- **Application reference:** 26/00313/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of a mid-terrace house (C3) to a 7-bedroom HMO (revised to 7 persons at appeal)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** P3, S4(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Scarborough Local Plan 2017 DEC1, DEC4, Scarborough HMO SPD 2015
- **Main issues:** living conditions of neighbours, parking
- **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, hmo-concentration, fallback, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A seven-bedroom HMO in a Scarborough mid-terrace would leave the neighbouring house sandwiched between two HMOs and add to heavy parking stress. The inspector found that the extra external activity of seven unrelated occupants could not be controlled by conditions, and gave the six-person permitted development fallback limited weight. Under S4 the moderate benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The appellant has provided additional comments concerning the relevance of the revised Framework" (DL ¶3).
- **Plan weight.** DEC4 "is broadly consistent with the Framework’s policies relating to the provision of healthy living conditions and quality of life, and I therefore afford the policy full weight" (DL ¶6); DEC1 likewise (DL ¶20).
- **Living conditions: HARM.** "the concern is not that future occupiers would behave unreasonably, but that occupation by seven unrelated individuals within a constrained terraced property would be likely to result in a materially greater level of day-to-day activity" (DL ¶10). An occupancy cap "would be difficult to monitor and enforce effectively in practice" (DL ¶13).
- **Parking: HARM.** "there is no planning mechanism before me that would prevent future occupiers from using private vehicles and obtaining parking permits" (DL ¶17).
- **Fallback.** A six-person HMO is realistic but less intensive, so limited weight (DL ¶21).

## Planning balance
S4(1): benefits moderate weight; living-conditions harm significant and parking harm moderate; "the adverse effects of the proposal would substantially outweigh its benefits. Consequently, the proposal fails to satisfy Policy S4 of the Framework" (DL ¶24-25).

## What made the difference
The sandwiching of No 42 and a constrained yard. A smaller HMO within the fallback, or a site without a neighbouring HMO, would have faced a different test.

## Transferable points
- HMO harm can arise from ordinary external activity, which management plans cannot prevent (DL ¶10-13).
- Occupancy caps are hard to enforce where rooms can take more than one person (DL ¶13).
- A permitted development fallback of a smaller HMO gets limited weight if the scheme is more intensive (DL ¶21, ¶23).
- Local amenity and parking policies consistent with the Framework keep full weight (DL ¶6, ¶20).

## Policy findings
- **P3: fail (significant weight).** mapped: seven unrelated occupants in a small terrace; No 42 sandwiched between HMOs; external activity not controllable by insulation, management plan or an unenforceable occupancy cap (DL 7-14, 24)
- **TR4: fail (moderate weight).** mapped: no off-street parking in a controlled, heavily parked area; only 5 cycle spaces for 7 bedrooms, detail lacking; low car ownership unevidenced (DL 15-20, 24)
- **S4(1): fail.** moderate-weight benefits (reuse, supply, choice, accessible location) substantially outweighed (DL 22-25)

## Key facts
- SPD 10% threshold within 100 m not exceeded, but four HMOs in a 200 m street length and sandwiching of No 42 (DL 9)
- Six-person HMO fallback (C4 permitted development) realistic but less intensive; limited weight (DL 21, 23)
- DEC1 and DEC4 "broadly consistent" with the Framework and given full weight (DL 6, 20)
- Appellant commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012886
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b5a04e25-d00b-446e-bec3-65cc43ef15ca

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012886.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.